Filed: Apr. 06, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6110 ANTHONY LEON HOOVER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:06-cv-01018-JAB) Submitted: March 29, 2007 Decided: April 6, 2007 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Leon Hoover, Appe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6110 ANTHONY LEON HOOVER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:06-cv-01018-JAB) Submitted: March 29, 2007 Decided: April 6, 2007 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Leon Hoover, Appel..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6110
ANTHONY LEON HOOVER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
NORTH CAROLINA,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (1:06-cv-01018-JAB)
Submitted: March 29, 2007 Decided: April 6, 2007
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony Leon Hoover, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Leon Hoover seeks to appeal the district court’s
January 3, 2007 order adopting the report and recommendation of the
magistrate judge and dismissing his § 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2000)
petition without prejudice to refiling a new petition correcting
the defects and paying the applicable filing fee. This court may
exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291
(2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.
Loan Corp.,
337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order Hoover seeks to appeal
is not an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Domino
Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392,
10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67
(4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 2 -